Seòmar agus comataidhean

Although we do not want to be overburdensome, we want to offer flexibility, as the minister said. It is our job in this Parliament to ensure that the approach is consistent, while recognising that we must not put too much of a burden on to local authorities.

It is really important for the economy, jobs and the sector that we see improvements—we all want that, as I can hear in this room. I also recognise that the minister has said that he will work with me, my colleagues and others on some of the amendments. I thank him for that.

I thank you and the committee, convener, for welcoming me to the committee and giving me the opportunity to speak.

As members will be aware, I have supported the motion of my colleague Tess White. Maggie Chapman, who is deputy convener of the committee, must be removed. She has undermined judicial independence and breached rules on parliamentary conduct. I was surprised to hear her contribution just now. Maggie Chapman may not agree with the Supreme Court judgment, but it appears that she has doubled down; she is conflating her own opinion with the interpretation of law. This is not, as Paul O’Kane says, a triumph of one or more groups. This is about Maggie Chapman’s beliefs and opinions.

We could easily say that women have been victims of a personal culture war. Women have been accused of misogyny and sexism; they have been accused of racism and bigotry and could legitimately make the same claims that we are part of a cruel culture war. That has nothing to do with this matter. I agree with my colleague Pam Gosal—this is gaslighting, Maggie Chapman.

The committee is taking a highly unusual step today. Calling for an MSP to step down is a serious matter. We have been here before over lesser matters, but never has the Parliament seen such an egregious dereliction of duty. The convener will be aware that I was a member of this committee when Ms Chapman was sanctioned for breaching the MSP code of conduct by failing to disclose her former role as chief executive officer of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, while questioning the CEO of Rape Crisis Scotland. That breach, in a way, was small fry compared with what is before us today. I do not have a vote; other members have a vote.

We are discussing what Maggie Chapman said in Aberdeen on 20 April this year. We have heard that she declared to an assembled group:

“And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions.”

We will all be aware that when lawyers take their oath to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will, they mean it. Judges make decisions by interpreting the law, and to use the language that Ms Chapman used implies that Lord Hodge and his colleagues were not simply doing their job in interpreting the law, but bringing so-called prejudice, bigotry and hatred to their decision.

In response to Ms Chapman’s shameful attacks, as we have heard, Roddy Dunlop KC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, considered it his duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary. The faculty considers the comments made by Ms Chapman appalling and highlights that the Supreme Court and all judges are in the role to apply the law and not to take sides.

The most serious of points made by the faculty are that Ms Chapman has failed to uphold the independence of the judiciary, which members have talked about this morning, and that her comments

“create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves.”

The First Minister, John Swinney, agrees that her comments were wrong and that she was wrong to challenge the independence of the judiciary, so I am surprised to hear that Marie McNair does not support Tess White’s motion.

Many people will try to defend Maggie Chapman’s comments by referencing the right to freedom of speech. We live in a democracy, but as the legal academic Scott Wortley said,

“any legitimate criticism should be made while respecting the independence of the judiciary and the importance of upholding the rule of law.”

In summary, why should Maggie Chapman stand down? She has not carried out her parliamentary duties in an appropriate manner, consistent with the standing of this Parliament. She has brought the Parliament into disrepute. Her comments are a direct attack on the independence of the judiciary. She cannot carry out her duties as deputy convener of this committee in line with impartiality requirements in guidance that is set by the Parliament, and in that vein, witnesses may be reluctant to partake in committee proceedings.

I call on all committee members to put personal loyalties and their personal opinions aside and to act to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the committee and vote to support Tess White’s motion to remove Maggie Chapman as a member of the committee.

Amendment 1068, as has been summarised, introduces a requirement for ministers to review provisions relating to tenants affected by domestic abuse. The review would encompass limitations on social landlords, the resources needed to implement those provisions and other relevant matters.

We know that social landlords are a key part of the support mechanism and the network. In some circumstances, they are the first port of call for tenants affected by domestic abuse, and it is important that we further understand the support that is available, as well as the limitations that are faced by social landlords such as local housing associations. After all, there is a limit on what a landlord can do in such circumstances, so advice and support from specialists and independent expertise ought to be a key part of the system.

Amendment 1068 was developed after discussions with housing associations in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, which emphasised that, because of resource limitations, many social landlords are unlikely to be able to offer support to tenants. One of the key areas that they highlighted was a critical need for independent specialist services to be funded and for such services to be integrated with local authority services. Those services are sometimes operated by the third sector, and they are subject to financial fragility, as we have all witnessed. Amendment 1068 would enable landlords effectively to signpost tenants and facilitate access to the necessary support, particularly in cases in which the disclosure of domestic abuse might not be immediate or forthcoming.

I welcome the minister taking the time to meet me to discuss the amendment, and I am willing to work on it and lodge a redrafted amendment at stage 3.

I would like you to clarify something, Mr McLennan. On some of the other amendments, you stated that you were willing to go back to the drawing board and work with members. In the meeting that we had, you said that you were willing to work with me on my amendment regarding the provisions for social landlords. Are you now saying that you have changed your mind?

Okay. Thank you.

I was very concerned on Tuesday, when I was stopped by a woman who was clearly homeless. She had a piece of paper in her hand and asked me whether I knew of any drop-in centres, because every centre that she had gone to accepted only council referrals. I directed her as best I could, but in order to help people such as that woman, who was in such a severe predicament, Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 1086 should surely be expedited rather than rejected.

Unlike Graham Simpson, I will not be brief, because, as members know, I champion matters of rural significance.

Amendment 1050 would amend the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019 to require the fuel poverty strategy to include provision on how ministers plan to support the improvement of energy efficiency in existing rural properties. Fuel poverty is a significant issue in rural and island areas, with Scottish Government statistics highlighting the disparity. In 2022, extreme fuel poverty affected 25 per cent of households in rural areas compared with 17 per cent in urban areas. Moreover, the highest extreme fuel poverty rates were found in remote rural households, with 35 per cent facing severe challenges—that is more than in any other region.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission has previously stated that fuel poverty and a lack of affordable homes pose threats to the human rights of people who live in rural communities, including areas such as the Highlands and Islands and Argyll and Bute. Poor energy efficiency of homes remains a key driver of fuel poverty throughout Scotland, but particularly in rural areas. To highlight that, I note that the lowest rates of extreme fuel poverty are associated with higher energy efficiency standards. Only 12 per cent of households that live in dwellings with an energy performance certificate rating of band C or better are in extreme fuel poverty, compared with 23 per cent of dwellings in band D and 32 per cent of dwellings in band E. That highlights the effect that energy improvements can have on fuel poverty and standards of living.

Houses in rural areas often face unique challenges with energy efficiency. Amendment 1050 aims to ensure that the fuel poverty strategy adequately addresses those unique challenges and provides clear support for energy efficiency improvements in rural properties.

I move amendment 1050.

I thank the minister for commenting on amendment 1050. He is right that support is presently available under current policy and legislation from the Scottish Government. I also acknowledge that he has met me and intends to discuss with me how we take this forward, but I note that his response, in a sense, had a hidden message, which is that he will repeat what support is presently available under the current legislation rather than working with me on amendment 1050.

I apologise to the minister for my scepticism. It really is not much to ask to give people in rural areas clarity on the framework. That is important because, at the moment, they do not have that clarity. The amendment asks only that ministers set out their approach and how they intend to support existing rural residential properties to improve their energy efficiency. However, I will not press amendment 1050. I will be positive and overcome my scepticism about the minister’s response.

Amendment 1050, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 49—Periodic reports: periods, consultation and publication etc

Amendment 1051 moved—[Paul McLennan]—and agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

Thank you, convener. I thank you and the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of petition PE2121 on running a targeted roadside litter awareness campaign.

Like the convener, I welcome to the public gallery the petitioners, Carolyn Philip and Myra Watson, from Berwickshire anti-litter group. The group regularly co-ordinates litter picks throughout Berwickshire, including on the A1, which is one of the main tourist routes into Scotland. I also welcome around 30 other litter and gardening groups who are watching online. Members of the committee will be pleased to hear that groups from their own constituencies and regions, such as West Lothian litter pickers and Dundee litter pickers, are among those watching online.

We all know that volunteers such as Carolyn and Myra give up their free time to pick litter, out of the goodness of their hearts. They choose to do it with very little support from anyone, including the Scottish Government and cash-strapped local authorities.

Between March and April 2024, Keep Scotland Beautiful held its annual spring clean, in which 45,000 people from every local authority across Scotland took part in 3,564 registered litter picks. Those volunteers care deeply about the communities in which they live, and they recognise the importance of protecting Scotland’s biodiversity through maintaining the cleanliness of our environment.

Recent statistics reveal that just over four in five people in Scotland—82 per cent—agree that they want to see more efforts to prevent litter in their area. A similar figure—81 per cent—express a desire for increased action to clean up litter locally.

Carolyn Philip, the lead petitioner, has said that, for three years, she and others have been writing to councillors, Government ministers, BEAR Scotland and Transport Scotland. She says that their responses have been patronising, thanking them for their hard work but not providing any positive or constructive solutions that are enforceable.

Despite the Scottish Government publishing the national litter and fly-tipping strategy that the convener mentioned, the landscape of who is responsible for collecting roadside litter, enforcing penalties and raising awareness of the issue remains confused and scattered. Furthermore, the pace of action by the Scottish Government is glacial, meaning that the blight of litter continues to have a significant negative impact on communities and our environment.

Keep Scotland Beautiful admits that we have reached the point at which there is a litter emergency, and that, without increased coordination and attention, the current situation is unlikely to change.

I agree with Carolyn when she says that we need definitive action, not more talk. On that note, I will close by saying that I would like to add my full support to the aims of the petition, and I hope that the committee will give it due consideration.

Can I have a supplementary, convener?